Posted
by
Soulskillon Tuesday November 08, 2011 @07:05PM
from the how-all-government-interactions-should-be dept.

Hugh Pickens writes "BBC reports that a technical glitch allowed reporters to listen in on a private conversation between French President Nicolas Sarkozy and US President Barack Obama, made in a backroom meeting at the G20 summit, treating listeners to a rare insight into the importance of personal relationships in international politics. 'I can't stand him any more,' said Mr. Sarkozy of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. 'He's a liar.' Mr. Obama replied: 'You're sick of him. I have to deal with him every day!' According to Reuters, the two presidents were apparently 'unaware that the microphones in their meeting room had been switched on, enabling reporters in a separate location to listen in to a simultaneous translation.' The reporters made 'a group decision... not to report the conversation as it was considered private and off-the-record,' but Arrets Sur Images, a French website that covers current affairs, got wind of the exchange and broke the story."

Oh wait its the Israeli guy their complaining about? Oh shit that is news... Never had a -5 before...

Acknowledging Netanyahu is a two-faced, backstabber is the news - but do keep in mind, he's only doing what the people behind him want and that % of the population of Israel has been in the majority and more bent than ever upon just taking the whole of Palestine from the Palestinians - their book says it was their's and after hundered of years they've decided to come back and claim it. Quite unapologetic, too.

It's much, much more complicated than that. The "Palestinians" have had numerous opportunities for statehood from the early 1900's onwards. They've rejected peace option after peace option after peace option, beginning with several offerings from the British (who ruled the Manate of Palestine through 1947) and then launched an all-out war when the original UN partition plan was put into place.

This was AFTER they were already given the nation of Transjordan, into which no Jews were allowed to emigrate.

And of course, those who scream about "Palestinian refugees" ignore the fact that the stolen land intended to become the Nation of Palestine in 1948 was taken over, not by Israel, but by the nations of Syria, Lebanon, Transjordan, Iraq, and Egypt. The "Palestinians" were made "refugees" ON THEIR OWN LAND as a cynical political ploy by the Arab League and the Pan-Arabist factions, nothing more. And they still fail to acknowledge the number of Jews - at least twice the number of so-called "Palestinian refugees" - in Arab states in the years 1948-1955 who were kicked out, their houses and property confiscated, and forced to move "somewhere" (e.g. Israel) by those same Pan-Arabist forces and governments.

But you probably never did the slightest research into the subject. Because to you, it's all about "one side good, other side bad." The Jews have been kicked around and harassed by just about everyone for the past 2000 years. The "Palestinians" of the region have been abused by their so-called "brethren" the Arab Muslims, turned into a group of impoverished and locked-up people in one of the worst and most inhumane cynical political ploys I've ever seen. Meanwhile, the terrorist forces running the "refugee" region have attacked everyone they could find - tried to assassinate the leaders of Transjordan/Jordan numerous times, attacked the Egyptian government so often that the Egyptians said "fuck this" and put up a wall between themselves and Gaza a long time before the Israelis finally caught on to the wisdom of the idea, and of course waging a bloody-ass civil war in the south of Lebanon for the past two decades.

For my money? The Arabs - specifically, the Pan-Arabists, the fundamentalist Arab governments especially - are a bunch of fucking assholes. The leaders of the "Palestinian" movement? Likewise. The leaders of Israel? Probably assholes too, but they are tasked with an incredibly hard position, trying to keep a nation of a few million people safe from a group of hundreds of millions of assholes in nations like Iran who are told at Mosque once a week that the Jews will be "destroyed" in the apocalypse and that the Jews aren't even human. So I can cut them a little slack there.

Oh, and the people stuck in the middle - the few civilians in the "Palestinian territories", the civilians in Israel? Sucks to be them, on both sides.

So, because they have been kicked around and harassed, they have the right to do as they please? And how convenient of you to omit the influx of jews to what now is Israel after they assisted Britain in taking control of the territory in 1917. But when the arabic population revolted against what could have been seen as an "invasion", and the brits imposed restrictions on jewish immigration, they turned on them. During the post-WWII era, the palestinian territories were flooded by holocaust survivors.
Now t

Eh, if every other surrounding neighborhood had a culture similar to my own, and felt so strongly about it that they were willing to go to war to try to throw that new incoming nationality out of my neighborhood, only failing because they weren't strong enough to succeed militarily...

"Similar culture"? Just because some of the people in the neighboring countries are of arabian descent too?Syria has additionally to the Arabs Kurds, Cherkessians and Armenians, the president of Syria is neither muslim nor christian (like a percentage of the Palestinians), but Nusairian. Lebanon is half christian, half muslim, and in Lebanon, first several christian militias killed between 1000 and 1500 people in Karantina and then the Kata'ib (drusian militia) with the help from the israeli military police killed between 500 and 3000 palestinians in the both camps Sabra and Shatila. Jordan, where most palestinian refugees live, had several conflicts with Israel about water resources, and wishes nothing more than to get finally rid of the state-within-state refugee camps on its territory. 50% of Jordan's population are descendants from palestinian refugees, with most of them living in the both towns Amman and Zarqa (where more than 90% of the population are palestinian), and in the 10 remaining refugee camps. Basicly this means that native Jordanians and Palestinians never mixed - the native Jordanians own the land, and the Palestinians live in the towns and refugee camps.The only place where palestinians are land owners and are also the majority are - tada! - the West Bank and Transjordan. And this is the territory Israel cuts through with its settlements, some of them legal (on "state owned" land), some of them illegal, but still protected by the Israelian army.

The leaders of the neighboring countries are providing lip service to the Palestinians, because they want at first the refugee problem solved - e.g. the palestinians out of their respective countries. Syria for instance is propping up Hezbollah, which is a shiite organisation, while most Palestinians are sunnite. Jordan had one civil war because of the Palestinians in the early 1970, which ended in a massacre in the Palestinian refugee camps and Yassir Arafat fleeing from Jordan to Libya, Lebanon had severa

That's what I was trying to explain to you. Why do you think for instance that Syria is in any way sharia-observing? Bashar al-Assad, the dictator of Syria is not even muslim. And at least 3500 people have died in the last months for not respecting his non-muslim ideas how to govern a state. I know, that this somehow collides with the easy world view, where arab = muslim = terrorist. Reality probably owes you an apology, but that's the way it is.

No this really isn't more complicated than that. If "God" hadn't awarded certain tract to a certain group of people this WOULD HAVE NEVER STARTED! Unfortunately "God" seemed to have awarded it to both and to each exclusivity. If religion wasn't fueling the difference between the sides it WOULD HAVE BEEN RESOLVED LONG AGO. Why doesn't this "God" take the time to end all this strife and suffering instead of dicking around superimposing himself on toast?

It has nothing to do with god. As the guy from the earlier post said, you have no clue.
The Israeli state and the Zionism are all entirely secular movements, started by Russian socialist jews in the 19th century.
When my grandfather who was born in Germany in the 30s tried to get into College in Berlin, they told him they have already filled the capacity for jews , and if he still want to pursue an academic career he "should go to palestine, where he and his fellows jews belong". This phrase was common in E

It suggests that even politicians loath politicians and find their company insufferable.

When Country B is carved from the heart of Country A, and Country B is admitted to the UN, but Country A cannot because they can't learn to be civil with being deprived of their homes, property and liberty. Further, Country B builds settlements in the remaining occupied lands of Country A, despite it being viewed universally as an illegal act. So after a lot of tit for tat and really never getting anywhere with peace talks, Country A decides to press its case for recognition in the same forum which recognises Country B. Country B and its bigger mate, Country C, both get all excited and claim this would not be a good thing and not in the interests of peace talks (which haven't yielded anything in about 30 years.) Country A gets recognised by UNESCO, overwhelmingly and Country B is apoplectic, while its mate, Country C, claims this was a grave error and withdraws its tuppence of support for UNESCO. Country B strikes back by authorising even more settlements in occupied territories claimed by Country A.

Honestly. Country B and its leader would normally be shunned and subject to many and various sanctions sponsored by Country C, but only if it were any other country in the world, or so it seems. The situation is preposterous and the logic is broken. Sarkozy identified the elephant in the room. Even Obama recognised how problematic it can be. When will there be a candid talke and recognition that Israel is more often the villain and things should be set right?

That's right. Some of us have evolved beyond such primitive territorial quarrels. We tend to get annoyed at the societies that are still shedding blood over imaginary lines on a piece of paper.

Israel, on the other hand, is still living in the past, fighting a tired old war where the only way it could ever end is by having one side completely genocide the other. Winner gets a mound of dirt covered in the rotting dead flesh of their vanquished enemies. Israel vs Palestine, Iran vs Iraq, Sudan vs South Sudan... Brother vs brother. If they can't put in the effort to bury their grandparents' feuds for the greater good, then why should we be putting any effort into helping them ?

If I were Sarkozy, well I'd probably kill myself for being such a turd. But if I were any other UN member leader, I'd tell the Israeli PM to go fuck himself. We have enough irresponsible leaders in the developed world, we don't need to recruit the morally bankrupt ones.

People B left their land for a variety of reasons during Roman times. People A (The ones who stayed behind and are provably very close genetic relatives of People B) continued living there under various foreign rulers for over a thousand years during which they abandoned the religion they shared with people B in favor of Christianity and later Islam. People B come back, after over a thousand years, decide they want 'their land' back, drive people A into concentration camps where they live in squalor and misery. Meanwhile people B live a good life financed by the tax dollars from their good friend country C who also provides them with high tech weapons free of charge.

White-washing Israel works best in a right wing, christian conservative or jewish zionist delusion.

Actually to US is required by federal law (which can/should be changed) to not support any UN groups that allow Palestine (specifically) to be a member. If the US wanted to play fair and respect human rights they could repeal that law. Furthermore laws that effect a countries diplomatic policy are considered part of its diplomatic policy. Saying "sorry we have a law against that" is not a valid reason by itself for doing what the US is doing.

Agreeing he's an ass is different than an unchallenged assertion a foreign leader is a liar. That's potentially very serious. What's he lying about? Was he lying when he said didn't like frog legs for dinner, or lying when he said he wouldn't build more settlements?

Just because they think he's an ass doesn't mean their policy goals don't align. Charles De Gaul worked very hard to be a major PITA for the allies, but that was what he needed to do.

I'm Canadian too, and I have no idea what you mean when you say "We really hate the French".

Perhaps you shouldn't speak for a whole nation, when you're merely speaking for yourself, or your peer group?

I grew up in Southern Ontario, in a small community without a single Quebecer or French person around for hundreds of miles. I now live in Quebec, and (clearly) have no problem with "the french". I moved here because I live in the Capital region, and I can get an acre of land, 20 minutes from downtown Ottawa, surrounded by farmland, for 1/2 the price of a home on the Ontario side!

I do have issues with *some* french people, but I also have issues with *some* people from a broad spectrum of society.

I think what you really hate are 1) mostly quebec politicians and 2) dumbasses that happen to be french.

Suck it up buddy. #1 and #2 exist in every culture group, and language group, and genetic group, worldwide.;)

There are many areas of Quebec that are very unilingual friendly. I live in an area that has almost a 50%/50% split of english/french language, and it is very rare to go to a store where you can't get service in english.

Of course, by some odd and strange course of events, this is also the poorest municipality in Quebec.:P

You're going against the flow. Quebec is the leach on the RoC (Rest of Canada). Albertans pay $4,000 per taxpayer per year into the equalization fund, and Quebec sucks out $1,200 per capita (not per taxpayer) from that same fund, because Quebec has spent a generation destroying their economic base.

It's debt is much higher than any other province, and its tax rates are nuts - someone earning minimum wage pays more in provincial taxes than someone making $50k in Alberta.

Agreeing he's an ass is different than an unchallenged assertion a foreign leader is a liar. That's potentially very serious. What's he lying about? Was he lying when he said didn't like frog legs for dinner, or lying when he said he wouldn't build more settlements?

The jews are involved so obviously this is an anti-semetic scandal tantamount to the Holocaust, and both Obama and Sarkozy will be immediately impeached. On the other hand, Helen Thomas must be chuckling to herself.

The news is that the reporters are puppets for their respective governments and didn't report it. Notice the only part of the conversation to get made public is the tabloid naughty talk. There was probably all sorts of real news in there, but we're sure as hell not going to hear about that.

The real news that everyone seems to be missing is the part where Obama says, "I have to talk to him every day."

Why is the President of a country as large and powerful as the US talking to the leader of Israel that often? (I'm sure he didn't mean literally every day, but obviously more than once or twice a week)

I think he said deal with him, not talk to him. That doesn't necessarily involve personal contact on a daily basis, but might just mean having to consider his potential reaction when making decisions or dealing with fallout from his issues.

Oh PLEASE. There is bias that get into a story,even through the best efforts to keep it out, then there is fox news. Upper management literally tells it's people what to say. The espouse to the public that they are a 'News' site, but in court that claim that's onl;ty gfor an hour ro to.

In the movie, he was on a panel of some press conference and after he spoke, he forgot to take off his wireless microphone and headed off the mensroom whereby the sounds of his visit were broadcast over the PA system.

In the movie, he was on a panel of some press conference and after he spoke, he forgot to take off his wireless microphone and headed off the mensroom whereby the sounds of his visit were broadcast over the PA system.

The BBC article suggests that reporters were told not to plug headsets into the translation reception devices and, of course, did so anyway.

Another article (Dutch) suggests that reporters were given the devices and told that they would receive headsets later - some decided to plug in their own (didn't want to wait? didn't want to use other headphones? who knows).

Regardless, it was apparent that all of the reporters were getting the French translation of the discussion that took place (according to the Dutch article).

Which of course implies that not only were the microphones in that office open, but translators were active at that time to translate that which was discussed into French.

What actually transpired? Well, who cares, really.

At least two world leaders are now somewhat on the record as to their disdain of Netanyahu. On the other hand, that disdain doesn't matter. Berlusconi is still in office (for now, announced he's leaving in 2 weeks) despite having grossly insulted world leaders of pretty much every nation. If they can't even really deal with him, what hope would they have of dealing with the Israelis? If they even wanted to.

The difference is that nobody really gives a shit what an Italian PM thinks on international matters, but people weigh the words of the US President with great care, and France still has sufficient influence in the world that the opinions of its President are still quite important.

He will go into war with Iran. He won't allow Congress to declare anything, he will just go into that war.

He now believes he is a King, no less. He abuses the executive order (he is not using it, he is abusing it for things it is not meant to be used). He is completely corrupted by the power, he is a war monger.

Not before the US election. He wouldn't risk alienating his core voters. He could claim humanitarian reasons for Libya and used NATO as a shield, but that wouldn't be possible with Iran. There's no humanitarian cause (at this time) and NATO won't risk a confrontation with Russia.

There's a much more plausible explanation: The US public are sick of wars and Obama can now put his opponents on the line. What would they do about Iran if they won? (If they say "nothing", then they lose the Jewish American vote -

It's just not polite to say it. Just last night they did this bit on House where the guy goes through a litany of truths about the guys fantasizing about having sex with the hot female doctor. Everybody knows it. It's just not polite to say it. Blah, blah, blah.

Journalism becomes nothing but PR when journalists don't report a story because they overheard something that 'was considered private and off-the-record'.

Disagree strongly, and I have worked as a journalist. A journalist is not a spy. Also, a journalist has a duty to determine what is news and what is simply information that has not been publicly disclosed. I'm sure there are lots of people who would like to know where Nancy Pelosi is on her menstrual cycle every time she makes a speech of votes in Congress, but this type of information simply isn't "fit to print," as the New York Times motto goes.

27. Staff members and others on assignment for us must obey the law in the gathering of news. They may not break into buildings, homes, apartments or offices. They may not purloin data, documents or other property, including such electronic property as databases and e-mail or voice-mail messages. They may not tap telephones, invade computer files or otherwise eavesdrop electronically on news sources. In the case of government orders or court directives to disclose a confidential source, journalists will consult with the newsroom management and the legal department on the application of this paragraph.

(emphasis mine)

Trust me, you are far better off when responsible journalists develop sources in a fair, honest, professional manner, rather than resorting to tabloid tactics. A journalist who blasts the slightest gaffe in 72-point headlines will quickly cease to hear anything at all.

It's like the beat cop who hauls everybody down to the precinct for the slightest infraction, versus the one who lets folks slide for the occasional open container or vandalism charge. Of the two, the one with the "zero tolerance policy" is going to have a much tougher time doing his job when something really important comes along.

"What someone doesn't want you to publish is journalism; all else is publicity. "

I find that statement to be pretty naïve. Good journalism is synonymous with good judgment.

In this case, even assuming that Obama's and Sarkozy's statements were genuine, they obviously seemed to be personal opinions and had little relevance to actual foreign policy. What if Obama was simply lying about his opinion of Netanyahu to amuse and placate Sarkozy? What's the public benefit to reporting such pleasantries?

But more importantly, how can you be so sure what the administration "doesn't want you to publish"? What if the statement was meant to be overheard, and even leaked, as a red herring to put pressure on Netanyahu during some upcoming talk? Then the journalist is simply being duped into acting as an indirect mouthpiece of the administration.

Good journalists don't just print stuff because they think they overheard it. That's why they're called "journalists" and not "tattle-tales."

The Reporters were told not to turn their headsets on until the show began. (Probably a bit silly in that Sarkosky/Obama should have turned their microphones off until they wished to be heard). As the conversation was meant to be private it would have been a serious violation (as in crime under french law) for anyone in attendance that was a French journalist to report on the content of what they illicitly overheard. So a tabloid that wasn't in attendence caught wind of the conversation and reported it. I'd expect that criminal charges will be leveled against whoever peeped.

But the point here is that under French law (privacy of conversation) they COULDN'T report on what they overheard (or they could be arrested) because they broke the conference rule by turning on their headsets early.

Diplomacy often requires tact, but just as often requires that a measure of privacy be afforded for negotiations. Can you imagine attempting to negotiate changes to your mortgage on the sidewalk? Can you imagine negotiating some difficult decision with your spouse in front of your entire extended family?

None of what these people do should be secret. They shouldn't be allowed anywhere without a number of cameras and microphones on them always and everything should always be transmitted out to the public.

It becomes impossible to have effective negotiations if each side must worry about how every sentence will sound to their constituencies. Americans would have flipped had they known that Kennedy agreed to remove some obsolete missile installations in Italy and Turkey to resolve the Cuban Missile Crisis [wikipedia.org], yet by doing so he avoided the very real possibility of nuclear holocaust. Just a thought...

If it's all the same to you I'd like to skip some parts... like for example their trips to the toilet.

I hope you realise that any such toilet exception would lead to the bulk of the G20 summit being conducted in the mens toilets. Leaving Germany, Brazil, Argentina and Australia to strike up a bizarre alliance in the women's toilet.

The people of that region yes used to be residents of the nations in question at one time. That doesn't change the fact that they are ethnically Semitic. Apparently you are under the wrong assumption that Semitic = Jewish. It doesn't, in general Semitic means a descendant of Abraham and Arabs (almost all Palestinians are of Arab descent) are descendants of Abraham.

Now it's true that if you killed every Palestinian you wouldn't have wiped out an entire ethnic group, but ethnic cleansing is by definition tryi

Jewish is not an ethnicity. Semitic is the ethnicity Jews derive from. Arabs are also Semitic. I'm not even sure how you went off on this tangent, as you appear to be arguing that Jewish is a separate ethnicity, its not, it's a religion not ethnic origin. Jews and Arabs are from the same ethnic group, the only real difference between the groups is the religion, which has nothing to do with genetic ethnicity. Palestinians aren't ethnically Jewish because Jewish isn't an ethnicity.

That would be like saying anglo-saxons are ethnically Christian. It's nonsense. You appear to need to study what ethnicity is and how ethnic groups are divided. Let me give you a hint, it's not dictated by the religion they choose.

The Israeli government is not losing support because they are Jews. They are losing support because of their actions.

We have a President who thinks his life would be a lot easier if the Israeli government would stop pissing off the international community with shit like the settlements. Then he wouldn't have to tell his ambassadors to exercise their Security Council veto every time the Israeli government engages in an international faux pas.

Do you know what "hyperbole" is? Do you know that "deal with" is not equivalent to "speak with"? Do you know that the Congress is the primary internal-facing Federal body in the US? Do you know that the President is the primary external-facing power in the US? Do you realize that foreign policy IS an affair of the US? Do you believe everything you read in a Slashdot summary, or for that matter, on the Internet at all?

I don't think you really understand how the presidency operates at all. Or journalists, or politics, or...

"Do you know that the Congress is the primary internal-facing Federal body in the US? Do you know that the President is the primary external-facing power in the US?"

I did not know that. In fact, I think you just made that up right now to buttress your point. The Constitution gives the Congress plenty of power over foreign affairs. Likewise, the President has plenty of authority over domestic affairs.

The sad part is that Israel has the only rational leadership in the region, they also a flash point to Obama and Co. need to keep tabs on them and to try and keep nudging them one direction.

The problem is, Obama has never liked them and now its going to be real hard to play nice. Israel won't listen and it has been apparent early on that your only as good for the Administration as to your ability to listen and do what they think should be done. Its a classic textbook ignorance of reality, thinking that just

They have rational leadership? Is that why apparently everyone thinks he's an asshole? Wouldn't a rational leader try to gain the trust of important world leaders? Is that why he can't establish peace even with the most powerful nation on Earth on his side? And by what definition is a theocracy a form of rational leadership?

A lot of the leadership in the middle east was installed by the U.S. I mean, I think it's kind of hypocritical for the U.S. to put an insane restaurant owner in charge of Afghanistan and then complain about a lack of rational leadership.

The answer to that is simple. The voting bloc Israel represents is huge. I'm not saying there's a conspiracy - in fact, I'm certain that there isn't - but politics is very us-vs-them and Obama has no interest in being one of "them". He wants strategic ambiguity and anything that could be deemed a slight or an insult would break that ambiguity.

Even in this case, he was reluctant to say anything overt. His brief statement had the air of plausible denial over its meaning. It may let him claim to both camps tha

Netanyahu has done more harm to American interests than most of our enemies. So I guess it's appropriate to treat him badly. He's sabotaging U.S. *and* Israeli interests in the name of testosterone and machismo. There's no rule that says we have to treat him as if he were a legitimate ally when he's not living up to his side of the bargain.